Re: [tools-pmc] GEF Incubator Proposal

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]

Re: [tools-pmc] GEF Incubator Proposal

From: Anthony Hunter <anthonyh@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 12:45:23 -0500
Delivered-to: tools-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
List-archive: <https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/private/tools-pmc>
List-help: <mailto:tools-pmc-request@eclipse.org?subject=help>
List-subscribe: <https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-pmc>, <mailto:tools-pmc-request@eclipse.org?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-pmc>, <mailto:tools-pmc-request@eclipse.org?subject=unsubscribe>

I guess this is a question for Wayne, how do you want us to proceed?

We can start with dot4zest right away, we have a committer with code who wants to check into CVS and take advantage of parallel IP. There are CQs for some of the code already. We can do an new GEF committer election right away?

Cheers...
Anthony
--
Anthony Hunter mailto:anthonyh@xxxxxxxxxx
Software Development Manager
IBM Rational Software: Aurora / Modeling Tools
Phone: 613-270-4613

Doug Schaefer ---2010/02/11 12:18:29 PM---BTW, where did this end up? Ian and Anthony are you working together on a plan for a path forward?

From:	Doug Schaefer <cdtdoug@xxxxxxxxx>
To:	Tools PMC mailing list <tools-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date:	2010/02/11 12:18 PM
Subject:	Re: [tools-pmc] GEF Incubator Proposal

BTW, where did this end up? Ian and Anthony are you working together on a plan for a path forward?

BTW2, Boris, feel free to speak up here. I think it's important that we get your insight to help resolve this matter.

Doug.

On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 10:43 AM, Doug Schaefer <cdtdoug@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Excellent. Thanks Wayne and Anthony. I think [3] would be huge boost for the GEF community. The CDT has a pretty big committer set and the social conventions work well. Peer pressure is what keeps everything in check. The benefits well outweigh the risks.

Doug.

On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 10:37 AM, Wayne Beaton <

wayne@xxxxxxxxxxx

> wrote:

As long as you are not expecting fine-grained access control to the code repository, #3 sounds grand to me. We are moving toward our established ideal of having one UNIX group for each project. That means that every committer gets access to every part of the repository. Restrictions are managed using social conventions.

>From my POV, there is some risk (albeit small) that committers with ability to touch all parts of the GEF repository, but limited understanding of their place in it may do unintentional damage. Or worse, intentional damage.

Wayne

Anthony Hunter wrote:

Hi Wayne

Can we do this?

[3] I run committer elections for new developers who want to work in GEF. The new committers complete the new commiter forms and for foundation gets them processed. They are then "legal" to work on the code in the exiting GEF project. There is no risk here since they are working on a portion of their code in the GEF repository.

Is creating an incubator going to be faster than [3] ?

My only push back is that I would like to see new committers and their GEF work being done on in GEF and not "somewhere else".

If we really feel a GEF incubator is the only way, then you have my support.

Cheers...
Anthony
--
Anthony Hunter mailto:

anthonyh@xxxxxxxxxx

Software Development Manager
IBM Rational Software: Aurora / Modeling Tools
Phone: 613-270-4613

Inactive hide details for Wayne Beaton ---2010/02/08 10:52:21 PM---I would like to better understand where the push back is comWayne Beaton ---2010/02/08 10:52:21 PM---I would like to better understand where the push back is coming from. Anthony, are you concerned that this means more work? Or

From:
Wayne Beaton <

wayne@xxxxxxxxxxx

>

To:
Tools PMC mailing list <

tools-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx

>

Date:
2010/02/08 10:52 PM

Subject:
Re: [tools-pmc] GEF Incubator Proposal

------------------------------------------------------------------------

I would like to better understand where the push back is coming from. Anthony, are you concerned that this means more work? Or that the work will be split? Or that it will be confusing for the community? Or confusing for somebody else? I'm having trouble understanding the underlying problem. Sorry.

IMHO, Ian's item #2 is probably one of the best reasons to create an incubator. Unfortunately, being a committer is a binary state on a project: either you have access or you do not. Earlier attempts at finer-grained access have resulted in lots of misery for all involved.

Without the incubator, existing GEF committers will have to work with contributors for any contribution. This takes time away from other important GEF activities, like working on in-plan items.

In the incubator, you can have a different set of committers (which may intersect with the GEF committers) managing off-plan contributions from the community while working on new and innovative ideas. All this, under the supervision of the "parent" GEF project. Some of these contributors can become committers on the incubator and learn the social conventions while they work on their cool new ideas; making these people committers on the incubator will reduce the time requirements from GEF committers (though somebody will have to monitor these new committers to make sure that the development process is followed). This pattern has been followed by numerous mature projects.

I'm thinking of ways that we can make this better. Some thoughts:

1) Change the EDP so that mature projects can designate a portion of their code repository as their "incubator" and allow this portion to have its own set of committers, and leverage parallel IP. This would require significant change to the processes the Foundation has in place; as I go through the mental exercise, it all feels just a little too cumbersome.

2) Relax some of the requirements on (some) projects. There is some minimal project data at needs to be provided via the portal (like description, source code URLs, that sort of thing). Incubators, at least, shouldn't have to have releases. Do they need to have plans? If we reduce the requirements placed on an "incubator" project, does that make creating one more palatable? I've been discussing this in my blog [1] and in bug 300000 [2]

Wayne

[1] _

http://dev.eclipse.org/blogs/wayne/2010/01/28/acknowledging-incubators/_

[2] _

https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=300000_

Ian Bull wrote:

Actually, while I think making this part of GEF proper
could work, the more I think about it the more an
incubator makes sense.

1. GEF is clearly a mature project in maintenance mode.
Many of the ideas being presented in this proposal stray
well off the beaten path. An incubator will help ensure
that GEF maintains it's current direction in the short
term, with the possibilty of new ideas flowing in down the
road.

2. The people doing the work are (for the most part) not
active committers on other projects. An incubator will
give us a chance to help mentor them.

3. The GEF project, follows a similar plan as the platform
(with respect to schedules, etc...). Forcing new ideas to
follow API freeze rules (for example) will only stiffle
innovation.

We could, if it makes more sense, propose this project
under "Technology". But since this is tied closely to GEF,
a tools project (IMHO) seems appropriate.

cheers,
ian

On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 9:02 AM, Doug Schaefer

<_cdtdoug@gmail.com_ <mailto:

cdtdoug@xxxxxxxxx

>> wrote:
On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 10:23 AM, Wayne Beaton

<_wayne@eclipse.org_ <mailto:

wayne@xxxxxxxxxxx

>> wrote:
Another benefit is that you can have a lower bar for
committers on the incubator. You can use the
incubator to grow folks into committer-worthy
status. Just a thought

The bar is as high as the existing committers set
it. ;). I'm still hoping for the "Eclipse Labs"
concept to develop so we can create such sandboxes
there.

Wayne

Doug Schaefer wrote:

BTW, the only benefit would be parallel IP.
You can do those other things without the
hassle of creating and managing a second
project. And even parallel IP could be handled
by storing the initial code off site. Until
it's ready for the review.

Of course, if you want to do it, I'm fine with
that. It just a pet peave of mine.

On Feb 3, 2010 8:56 AM, "Ian Bull"
<_irbull@eclipsesource.com_
<mailto:

irbull@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

mailto:_irbull@eclipsesource.com_

<mailto:

irbull@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

>>> wrote:

I don't know, that's a good question. I
thought that incubators provided a number of
advantages for new projects and new ideas,
such as:

* Parallel IP
* Pre 1.0 (wrt to API)
* A clear indication to early adopters of what
to expect

I don't have a problem with creating this work
as a sub component of GEF, although some of
this work is clearly "incubation" style work
(new ideas with undefined API that will
hopefully graduate -- but that will depend on
the quality and demand of the work being done).

Anthony, as the GEF lead, what do you tihnk?

cheers,
ian

On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 10:20 PM, Doug Schaefer
<_cdtdoug@gmail.com_
<mailto:

cdtdoug@xxxxxxxxx

mailto:_cdtdoug@gmail.com_

<mailto:

cdtdoug@xxxxxxxxx

>>> wrote: > > I am
on the record a...

_______________________________________________
tools-pmc mailing list_
__tools-pmc@eclipse.org_
<mailto:

tools-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx

mailto:_tools-pmc@eclipse.org_

<mailto:

tools-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx

>>
_
__

https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-pmc_

------------------------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
tools-pmc mailing list_